Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power United States

Coal-Powered Energy Finally Overtaken by Wind and Solar in the US (electrek.co) 87

Posted by EditorDavid from the old-king-coal dept.
"Wind and solar energy generated more electricity in the U.S. than coal for the first time last year," reports the Wall Street Journal, "according to analysis from clean-energy think tank Ember.

"The two renewable energy sources accounted for 17% of the country's power mix while coal fell to a low of 15%, it said." Solar was the fastest-growing energy source, according to Ember's analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, increasing 27% from the year before, while wind rose 7%... Natural gas generation increased 3.3% in 2024, according to Ember, and remains by far the largest source of electricity in the U.S., accounting for 43% of the mix...

California and Nevada both surpassed 30% annual share of solar in their electricity mix for the first time last year (32% and 30%, respectively). California's battery growth was key to its solar success. It installed 20% more battery capacity than it did solar capacity, which helped it transfer a significant share of its daytime solar to the evening. Texas installed more solar and battery capacity than even California.

Yet the growth of solar was uneven — 28 states generated less than 5% of their electricity from solar in 2024, highlighting significant untapped potential — even before adding battery storage.
The article includes this observation from Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember. "The fall in battery costs is a gamechanger for how much solar the U.S. electricity grid could integrate in the near future."

Electrek notes that "After being stagnant for 14 years, electricity demand started rising in recent years and saw a 3% increase in 2024, marking the fifth-highest level of rise this century..." Natural gas grew three times more than the decline in coal, increasing power sector CO2 emissions slightly (0.7%). Coal fell by the second smallest amount since 2014, as gas and clean energy growth met rising electricity demand, whereas historically, they have replaced coal. Despite growing emissions, the carbon intensity of electricity continued to decline. The rise in power demand was much faster than the rise in power sector CO2 emissions, making each unit of electricity likely the cleanest it has ever been.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coal-Powered Energy Finally Overtaken by Wind and Solar in the US More

Coal-Powered Energy Finally Overtaken by Wind and Solar in the US

Comments Filter:

  • Great but (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jrnvk ( 4197967 )

    Energy prices keep going up. We were told these renewable sources would be cheaper by now.

    • Re:Great but (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @11:27AM (#65235749)

      Energy prices keep going up. We were told these renewable sources would be cheaper by now.

      They do lower energy prices for the simple reason that the cost of mining wind and sunlight remains rock steady at $0.0 per MWh. However, transmission and distribution costs have increased because operators have dragged their hells on grid upgrades and expansions, fossil fuel energy sources like natural gas are still in the mix meaning that whenever somebody in the Middle East celebrates a wedding by emptying an AK-47 mag into the air the cost of fossil fuels rockets up, Putin's little history revision project in Ukraine isn't helping either and finally, all kinds of energy hungry industries like data/computing centres for AI and bitcoin mining drive up prices. The world is not as simple as Mr. Trump makes you think it is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        operators have dragged their [heels] on grid upgrades and expansions

        Batteries (backup sources) aren't the operators responsibility. They are the responsibility of the producers. To ensure contractual delivery responsibility.

        • They are the responsibility of: no one
          I can perfectly well sell a XYZ MW band from 10:00 to 14:00 local time, without any regards of the time before 10:00 and after 14:00.
          And if I fail to deliver: there is back up market. Called: reserve power. They take care of my failure, and I pay them for that.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are cheaper, but the grid operators who have substantial investments in fossil fuels and nuclear are going to make sure they get paid first.

      You can bypass them by installing your own solar. It will pay back in a few years and then it's all profit. Near zero cost electricity over lifetime.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        You don't seem to understand how grids run. System operators call up suppliers and schedule them to produce certain amounts at certain times. If you can't do that (by having backup sources) you get bumped off the phone list. Traditional suppliers know how to work within this system.

        Nobody wants a supplier who calls and says "Now I have some power to sell. Whoops. A cloud just went overhead."

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's not how the European grid works. They have an auction where everyone bids to supply the expected demand a day in advance. They start with the cheapest sources and work up until expected demand is met.

          They also have some extra reserve generation on standby, in case something breaks. Getting to be less of an issue now that grids are well interconnected.

          We have very good weather forecasting 24 hours in advance so it's rare that renewables can't meet their obligations. Happens to all sources, stuff break

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            They also have some extra reserve generation on standby,

            Which "they" is that? Here, we expect delivery by the bidder*. It's up to them (the bidder) to contract to have the reserves standing by.

            *The whole bidding thing to set prices isn't a bad idea in some cases. Unless you are in California and you let Enron game the system.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              The grid operator. They have to ensure that there is some margin, in case say a nuclear reactor SCRAMs or a transmission line goes down.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by PPH ( 736903 )

                That's not how our grid works. You, as a producer, are responsible for arranging backup should your source fail.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  That seems somewhat inefficient. Say you are a nuclear plant, you would need to pay someone to keep the equivalent of your output on spinning standby in case yours goes down. I suppose you could pool with other suppliers, but who is better placed to estimate required spinning standby and offline standby than the grid operator?

          • That's not how the European grid works. They have an auction where everyone bids to supply the expected demand a day in advance. They start with the cheapest sources and work up until expected demand is met.
            That is only the "day ahead" trade, as the name implies.

            The rest is traded YEARS in advance, usually 2 years. And then smaller brackets are traded months in advance.

            Day ahead trading or hours ahead is an extremely low percentage of the whole energy market.

        • The one who is not knowing how it works is you ...
          Phone list my ass.

          Power is not sold on the minute/second. It is sold months, years, or if necessary days ahead.

          The fluctuations happening "right now" are covered by the grid operator. And he bills the power supply companies that made his grid "fluctuating"

          There is no damn "phone list" - how the fuck would that work?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Do they?

      https://www.usinflationcalcula... [usinflatio...ulator.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      It might be regional. Apart from the notable jump at the beginning of the Ukraine war, I haven't seen energy prices going up in real terms here in the Midwest; not noticeably, at any rate. We have had some general-purpose inflation, of course.

  • Great (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Great I guess, but coal is a low bar to pass. Coal production peaked around 2008 and natural gas started taking over because it's far cheaper and easier to deal with, and burns cleaner.
    As an aside: "Environmental" types are still trying to ban gas appliances because NG is still a fossil fuel, but that's a harder sell because for years the public relations operation was to bill NG as the cheap, clean alternative to coal in order to get rid of coal. New York is beginning to ban gas stoves in most new construc

    • Natural gas turbines spin up/down faster though and can be retrofit for hydrogen.

      The non nuclear net zero transition is first PV to save on natural gas, then a transition to hydrogen from natural gas. Expensive, but doable.

      • The non nuclear net zero transition is first PV to save on natural gas, then a transition to hydrogen from natural gas. Expensive, but doable.

        Where does this hydrogen come from?

        I've seen mention of "white hydrogen" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) as an energy source but this appears to be quite rare. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) which isn't exactly reducing CO2 emissions since there's added steps between the natural gas and electricity production where losses in efficiency can be found.

        I believe there will be no real reduction in CO2 emissions without nuclear fission as an energy source. There

        • More PV and membraneless electrolysers.

          PV gets ever cheaper and then it gets cheaper some more, no end in sight.

          • The end in sight on the cost of solar PV is material costs versus other sources, see figure 2: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]

            Put every energy source on a level playing field and nuclear fission wins out based on material requirements. Because we can't level that field completely I expect wind, hydro, and geothermal to play big parts in our future energy supply. Solar PV will be largely relegated to off grid uses like satellites in orbit, cabins out in the woods, sailboats at sea, and so forth. If hydr

            • The steel/concrete costs aren't inherent. The cheaper PV gets, the more low angle mounting arrangements make sense. Low to the ground, low angle east/west position requires very little mounting material and no anchoring.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dvice ( 6309704 )

          I am not against nuclear, but I think nuclear will lose because it is too expensive and too slow to build. Those small modular reactors might prove me wrong, but the problem with them is that they don't exist yet, so it will take time to get them ready and the price is still unknown. So currently only way to get cheap energy is to build wind or solar, so that is what the world will build.

          Wind and solar will obviously cause big changes to electricity prices depending on sun and wind, which will lure differen

          • I am not against nuclear, but I think nuclear will lose because it is too expensive and too slow to build.

            The problems of time to build and cost cannot be solved until we have people experienced in building them. It was only with building more and more windmills and solar PV panels that we got the cost to where it is now, nuclear fission is no different in that respect.

            Those small modular reactors might prove me wrong, but the problem with them is that they don't exist yet, so it will take time to get them ready and the price is still unknown.

            The only way to know what they will cost is to build a dozen or so full scale examples. Building just one or two is insufficient to gauge the cost since people are still learning the process and it is too easy to dismiss any problems in constru

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Natural gas kitchen stoves are hands-down the best, that's why professional chefs insist on them.

  • I read this

    "The two renewable energy sources accounted for 17% of the country's power mix while coal fell to a low of 15%,

    and thought "wait, 15+17 isn't even a THIRD of 100%, where's the rest of it?"

    LNG makes up a huge chunk of the rest of that 100% of course. We still have a really long way to go before get hydrocarbons down to even 50% of what we use.

    It's a finite resource taken from the ground just as coal or oil is. I don't understand how natural gas (usually "liquefied natural gas" or LNG) is flying

    • Natural gas is a compromise.

      It is better (environmentally) than burning coal/oil, but more harmful than wind/solar.
      It is a waste product in the process of pumping petroleum (when we drill for petroleum, natural gas bubbles up and has to be dealt with).
      It is less harmful (environmentally) to burn it than to release it unburnt into the atmosphere.

      So we use it.

  • Impose tarrifs on "renewable energy". (Score:5, Funny)

    by RockDoctor ( 15477 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @12:36PM (#65235871) Journal
    Coming soon from a soot-coated White House : Trump will be imposing a 1,000,000% (ONE MILLOIN PERCENT) tariff on those freeloading Solarians exporting their energy to the US for use in US "solar" (a mis-spelling for "treasonable") or "wind" (a mis-spelling for "treacherous") power plants. In a move certain (?) to be welcomed by US coal producers (and Trump supporters), the tariff will only raise the costs of energy in the USA, but the money raised will go into tax cuts for those who have contributed $100 million to the Trump 2028 campaign. Since Democrats are, by definition and Executive Order, Losers, this pro-democracy move will increase peoples ability to choose the correct candidate in any future vote-weighings.

    Democracy : one Man one Vote. Trump is the Man, and he casts the Vote!

    (This message is brought to you from the scorpion pits of the Patrician, with his democratic approval. I used to be a journalist, but this is the only gig I can get now. Help! Ow!)

    • More like there's already a tariff on Chinese solar panels and polysilicon.

    • As I recall the Trump administration is continuing a policy from the Biden adminstation of tripling the USA nuclear power capacity by 2050. That would mean lowering CO2 emissions and lowering energy costs for Americans for the foreseeable future.

      Getting energy cost lowered long term might require rising tariffs on energy in the short term. Plenty of solar power production in the USA relies on cheap PV panels from China. Can the USA expect China to continue selling PV panels at low cost to the USA? I dou

  • I wonder what the number would be if the incremental energy required to install those renewables were deducted from the amount generated.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything cut to length will be too short.

Close